JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J. : In this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 28.1.1995 passed by the Collector, Mayurbhanj in OLR Revision Case No. 11 of 1994 whereby he dismissed the revision on the ground of limitation as well as on merits and confirmed the order dated 27.8.1994 passed by the Addl. District Magistrate (L.R.), Mayurbhanj, Baripada in OLR Appeal Case No. 16 of 1994 and the order dated 19.3.1994 passed by the Sub-Collector, Panchpir, Karanjia in RMC No. 5 of 1992.

2. The facts, as narrated in the records, are as follows:

Opposite party no.1 filed an application under Section 23 of the Orissa Land Reforms Act (in short, “the Act”) before the Sub-Collector, Karanjia for recovery of possession of land measuring Ac.0.20 decimals in Plot No. 373 under Khata No. 179 situated in village Thakurmunda. Kissam of the land is Gharabari-2. He cate¬gorically stated that the aforesaid land stands recorded in favour of Ratikanta Patra, Dusamanta Patra and others and the recorded tenants are Patra Tanti by caste. As such, in the Presi¬dential Notification they have been declared as Scheduled Castes so far as the State of Orissa is concerned. The ROR reveals that note of forcible possession was recorded in the name of Sadananda Mohanta and the land was purchased through invalid sale deed without obtaining prior permission as required under the Act. Notice was issued to the petitioner. He filed his objection stating therein that his ancestors are in possession of the land since 1952 after giving consideration money to the owner of the land in pursuance of the oral sale. Thereafter the recorded tenant executed registered sale deed No. 1616 dated 18.10.1968. From the date of purchase, he constructed house and is residing therein. The applicant, being Patra by caste, does not belong to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, his application was liable to be rejected.

3. The Sub-Collector after hearing the parties and taking into consideration the report of the R.I. and other materials available on record came to the conclusion that the applicant belongs to Scheduled Caste community, the person in possession of the land belongs to Non-Scheduled Caste, the unregistered sale deed in pursuance of the oral sale as claimed by the purchaser is not valid in the eye of law nor the same is authenticated and the sale deed had been executed without prior permission from the competent authority. Therefore, Section 23 of the Act is attracted. On such findings, Sub-Collector, Karanjia directed the Tahasildar, Karanjia to restore the schedule land to the appli¬cant.

4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed OLR Appeal before the Addl. District Magistrate (OLR), Mayurb¬hanj, Baripada contending that the ROR reveals the caste of the recorded tenant as “Patra Tanti”. However, in the registered sale deed, the caste of the vendor is reflected as “Patra”. Therefore, the entries made in the ROR cannot conclusively prove the caste of the said vendor. Secondly, he contended that actual transfer of the land was made on 5.1.1952 prior to the commencement of the OLR Act through an unregistered sale agreement since the consid¬eration money had been paid and possession was delivered and subsequently the said transaction was regularized by execution of the registered sale deed. As he was in possession of the land since 1952, he is not entitled to recovery of possession. Third¬ly, he acquired title by adverse possession being in possession of the same since 1952. The Addl. District Magistrate dealing with the aforesaid three contentions raised by the appellant came to the conclusion that entry made in the ROR is invalidly accept¬ed as genuine unless contrary thereto is proved and in the ab¬sence of any documentary evidence like Sabik ROR, Electrical Roll and other relevant documents to refute the contention that the applicant belongs to non-Scheduled Caste community, mere mention¬ing of the caste in the registered sale deed cannot be accepted